No number.

I thought there were two separate Tom Cruise movies at first – the Mission:Impossible sequel and Ghost Protocol, because there are now so many sequels in the franchise that they’ve started to dispense with the numbering for fear of putting people off.

The franchise is showing signs of becoming long in the tooth, but Ghost Protocol is still the best of the sequels. Director Brad Bird (yes, he of The Iron Giant and Pixar fame) put a stop to trying to be a James Bond wannabe and delivered a fast and frenetic action flick that doesn’t take the super agent/secret spy thing too seriously.

The premise: a misanthropic idealist nutter Kurt Hendricks (Michael Nyqvist) thinks that blowing up the entire world with the stockpiles of nuclear weapons accumulated by the Americans and Russians will rid the Earth of the scourge of humanity, allowing the planet to start anew. (Nevermind that the radioactive half-life will basically make the planet uninhabitable for thousands, if not millions of years.)

Meanwhile an IMF team are attempting to track down and identify a mysterious terrorist codenamed “Cobalt”. After the assassination of one of their agents, they extract Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise) from a Russian jail to help. He leads them in an audacious raid on the Kremlin for information, but things go awry and the good guys are implicated in a simultaneous terrorist attack on the building by Hendricks, which causes the Russians to assume that the Americans have declared war and forcing the United States government to put the eponymous Ghost Protocol into effect, disavowing any knowledge of the IMF and cutting off support.

I found it strange that the scriptwriters found it necessary to spell out to the audience exactly why the odds are stacked against Hunt and co. at this point, because you know there’s no chance of them failing. The ideal of an M:I story should be more about showing a situation where we gasp and think to ourselves “how the hell are they going to get out of this?!” instead of being told right from the beginning “it’s impossible, but if you fail the world will end OMFGBBQ!” It takes all tension out of the overarching plot, and relies purely on the visceral thrills to deliver.

Speaking of thrills, there wasn’t much “Impossible” in the movie – all of the gadgets and gizmos showcased are pretty old hat (or at least would be if you stay abreast of science and technology news like me):

• Microsoft Surface
• Gecko Gloves
• Hi-res 3D screens with eye tracking
• Passenger avoidance HUD
• etc.

All of these have been talked about in scientific journals and technology news sites for a while now, so I found myself feeling very “meh” rather than amazed about the whole thing.

But those criticisms aside, the movie feels “comfortable”. It could very well be the rehashing of the old Cold War trope of Russians vs. Americans (has the Middle-East-as-bad-guy finally fallen out of favour?) and the spectre of nuclear war, bringing the M:I back to the era where it originated from. And at the end of the day that’s the point of a franchise, isn’t it?

Some of these cities aren't in the movie, but why let that get in the way of a good acrostic eh?

Back to the review: Contagion is one of those ensemble dramas a la Crash featuring a host of big names in several simultaneous but separate plot threads. First we have Mitch Emhoff (Matt Damon), whose wife Beth (Gwyneth Paltrow) contracted the disease while on a business trip to Hong Kong, and seems to be the main carrier for the disease. Beth dies and Mitch – who is immune to the disease – finds himself dealing simultaneously with grief, caring for their daughter, and protecting themselves from the madness of civilised society collapsing around him in the panic caused by the outbreak.

Next is Dr. Ellis Cheever (Lawrence Fishburn) as the head of the US Center for Disease Control (CDC), and his field agent Dr. Erin Mears (Kate Winslet). Her role is to investigate and contain outbreaks of the disease in the US, with the difficult task of motivating action in the face of apathy and government bureacracy.

Third is the agent dispatched by the World Health Organisation (WHO) to investigate the source of the virus, Dr. Leonora Orantes (Marion Cotillard). In Hong Kong, she gets involved with a few members of the local police force who are fanatical about protecting their relatives in a small rural village.

Lastly we have Alan Krumwiede (Jude Law) – who comes up with these names!? – as a cariacature of the “citizen journalist”, a crackpot who believes that the whole thing is a dramatic conspiracy by the drug companies to improve their share price.

The glue holding them all together here is the threat of a global disease epidemic – tracing the paths of the very many activities that happen in such a scenario. It’s a surprisingly robust cinematic exploration of what would happen in the event of a major outbreak of a severity equal to or greater than that of the SARS “bird flu” outbreak or the more recent H1N1 variant. I have it on good authority (one of Jenny’s medico friends) that the portrayal of the medical profession at least is quite accurate.

The movie portrays many different perspectives on the story from a purely neutral perspective, not deifying or demonising any particular side. Even the odious government bureacrat doesn’t get her well-deserved comeuppance, as one would expect, and characters that don’t deserve to die, do. Overall, a very interesting intellectual diversion from the usual movie-going fare.

Ooh, a low angle shot with the sky in the background. It's a drama then eh?

Steven Spielberg’s latest, War Horse, is based on a play (which in turn is based on a book). Considering the central character is a horse, I’d be curious to see how they pull that off on stage – do they use a real horse? The story is a pastiche of human events intertwined with the life of Joey, the horse of the movie’s title.

Spielberg’s adaption feels like a faithful recreation of a play. That is, there’s a very clear delineation between each of the movie’s sections, and like some stage-to-screen adaptations (e.g. Chicago), the main difference is that the backgrounds and props are real instead of stage contrivances.

Not being a history buff, I found the movie’s depiction of certain aspects of World War I odd – why did the English charge the Germans on horseback with swords, when guns clearly existed (and were used enthusiastically throughout the rest of the movie)? But being primarily a horse biography rather than a war flick (which I don’t normally like), I quite enjoyed it.

The themes were often quite depressing – the movie endeavours to show that the war was hard on people on both sides – but there were times when attempts to lighten the mood seriously threatened the film’s credibility. One scene featuring a pesky goose wandered dangerously close to Babe territory, and you almost expect the animals to start talking.

There’s also a very close resemblence to the 2005 foreign film Joyeux Noël, but I won’t spoil the particulars of that for you.

If you like horses, there’s probably no question that you’ll like this movie and should go see it. Likewise if you enjoy dramas. For everyone else, this is probably a DVD rental.

The missing text for the bottom three pictures are "Weeny", "Whiney" and "Schmoe"

Onto the review. Horrible Bossees doesn’t so much have a plot as a framework on which a number of jokes are hung. These range from mildly annoying to genuinely amusing. My guess is that the movie was a contrivance allowing the screenplay writers to give themselves carte blanche to have a bunch of suburban middle-class white men to make inappropriate social comments.

The three eponymous bosses are extreme cariacatures of treacherousness, libidinousness, and nepotistic…ness. Each is paired up with one of our hapless heroes: Nick (Jason Bateman), Dale (Charlie Day) and Kurt (Jason Sudeikis). In a style reminiscent of The Wizard of Oz – lacks a certain je ne sais qua that would allow him to escape his situation. It’s in these dire straits that the trio half-jokingly formulate a plan to assassinate their superiors, and the movie takes a turn for the better.

Enter Jamie Foxx as a shady hitman. The scenes with him in it almost justifies the existence this movie (to say nothing of Jennifer Aniston’s, um… appearances – whatever you choose to read into that word).

What makes the movie border on intolerable is the way that Dave’s whiney voice increases in pitch throughout the whole movie until by the end his screechings give Chris Rock a run for his money.

Kevin Spacey, as Nick’s boss Dave Harken, did well with what he was given; he plays the snarky bad guy with ease. Colin Farrell’s talents were completely wasted (har har) in the role of drug addled Bobby Pellitt, Kurt’s nemesis, and Aniston tries desperately to reinvent herself as a sexy middle-aged woman, although she has obviously had herself cosmetically altered to have the body of someone much younger. Still, her acting was as unmoving as her gravity defying bosoms, and as wooden as the nether regions of those who watched this for its smut potential.

Watch this one if you’ll be happy for 15 minutes of genuine belly laughs to justify the other hour-and-a-half of crude, lewd, “dude” humour.

I don't recall even seeing any posters for this movie. Just picked out this one at random.

Everett: I’m with the FBI.

Kid: What? Behavioural Science Unit?

Everett: No, Narcotics.

Kid: Bah, drugs.

The dog's a Red Kelpie, in case you're interested

Red Dog is the movie that Australia should have been. It’s a perfect storm of quintessential Australiana: mateship, multiculturalism, the outback, Strine, natural resources, and the Aussie-larrikin sense of humour. It paints a detailed portrait of both the country and its people, without resorting to caricatures or stereotypes like Baz Luhrman did (well, it does a little bit, but I’ll explain below).

Although it purports to be based a real, true blue story, the plot follows a very similar template to the Hachiko story, which was also recently filmed by Hollywood as Hachiko: A Dog’s Story with Richard Gere (I haven’t seen that one, although I’m willing to bet that this movie doggy-doos all over it, in line with my usual tirade about all the good things that Hollywood goes out of its way to ruin). Essentially, it’s about a dog that demonstrates the epitome of canine faithfulness after its master dies.

Because the story is made out to be a legend and told in flashbacks, the characters are all slightly comical (e.g. three Eastern Europeans characters with surnames ending in -ski are referred to as “The Ski Patrol”), but it doesn’t detract too much because you expect legends to be somewhat hyperbolic. The characters might be overplayed, the humour and emotions definitely aren’t – the script never tries to extort a laugh or a tear from you, and casually and confidently lets the audience decide for itself how it should feel.

Whether you’re a dog person or not, Red Dog is part of that rare breed: the charming Australian movie (but having said that, Aussie movies seem to be on the up and up) and definitely worth watching.

Am I the only one that thought this might have been an anagram for something? Although if Tom Marvolo Riddle/I am Lord Voldemort is the standard set by the books then I should know better than to bother.

No other movie franchise has held my attention for as long (10 years) and as often (8 movies) as Harry Potter. Well, there’s the Bond franchise, but that’s cheating ‘coz they’ve had, what, 6 different actors play Bond? Plus, none of those are related, whereas the individual Potter stories come together to form a gestalt – somehow bigger and more epic than its component parts.

You may recall from my review of Part 1 that I didn’t have many kind words for it. However, I’m happy to report that Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 is a much more satisfying movie. It’s like the two were twins at birth, and one was sacrificed so that the other might live a better life; all the energy that was lacking in the former is present in spades in the latter.

I still make no apology for saying that the book on which it’s based was a travesty of lazy writing, but the authors of the screenplay have done extremely well to bring forward the strengths in the plot and hide the rubbish – again, by burying it in the first part – so that fans could enjoy a thrilling and satisfying end to the ride that they’ve been on for the last decade.

The cast and crew should be applauded for their efforts – unlike many others that received cheap, nasty cash-ins, Potter has been fairly reliable in delivering the goods. It’s had a good run, and as a fan, you couldn’t ask for more.

Bot, babe and boofhead. What more could one ask for in a movie?

Can you believe that this is my first Transformers movie review on Geekreads? With Transformers: Dark of the Moon, we’ve finally come to the end of Michael Bay’s movie trilogy, and let me say that it’s been a rough ride for this Transformers fan. It’s been quite the ordeal being asked by fellow Transformers fans whether I enjoyed seeing Michael Bay repeatedly rape my childhood, because secretly, I enjoyed the movies.

I realise the litany of offenses against the source material is epic, but if the huge box office success of all three movies is anything to go by, Bay could be forgiven for the fact that he has helped to cement Transformers in the minds and imaginations of a whole new generation, keeping the franchise alive unlike many other cartoons that are still lurking in the shadows waiting for the possibility of a reboot (or have already tried, and failed).

Having said that, it’s not all roses. Dark of the Moon, like its predecessors, is no masterpiece (although apparently it does demonstrate some advanced movie-making techniques, for those interested in the cinematic arts). Whatever merits it might otherwise have, the movie is sorely let down by:

• Bad concept: this isn’t really a Transformers movie, it’s an alien invasion movie featuring Transformers characters.
• Bad writing: the characters are not only inconsistent with the Transformers “lore” (as established in the original cartoons and comics), they’re inconsistent within and between the movies. For example, Optimus Prime goes from being a compassionate, courageous leader, to a ruthless, merciless killer without rhyme or reason.
• Tight budgeting: the scenes designed to minimise the use of CGI were so very, painfully obvious, e.g. how the Wreckers never appeared in anything but their “bristling with weapons” vehicle mode; they’re never seen to transform.
• Pernicious product placement: among the worst I’ve seen in recent times. From the glaring “Lenovo” logos on all the screens to the photocopier with a ream of Double A paper resting on it a la this old TV ad – it made the movie seem like one long ad.

But surely, the monstrous box office takings must mean that they did something right? Personally, I think these things might have been:

• Making the action scenes visually intelligible: a big problem with the previous movies (particularly Revenge of the Fallen) was that the robot fights looked like a giant machine vomiting jagged metal parts onto the screen. Giving each of the robots distinctive colours instead of the various shades of silver and grey, and the liberal use of slow-mo, made it possible to comprehend the fight choreography.
• Having “something for everybody”: yeah, the fans will argue that the humans in the story are superfluous, but unfortunately the rest of the cinema-going public would largely disagree. Covering all bases with the eye candy, toilet humour, conspiracy theories, etc. means that nobody is entirely bored and unentertained for the whole duration of the movie – whether you brought your partner, kids, parents or friends. Heck, even Margaret Pomeranz (of At The Movies) had kind words for the first half hour dealing with the moon landing.

You can’t please everybody, and I believe Michael Bay made the right decision by NOT pandering to the hardcore fans. Yes, the movies could’ve been better with consistent storylines and faithful characterisations, but then I’m afraid that the approval of the geeks would have kept others at Bay *tish boom*.

Why defy gravity when you can make it work in your favour?

For a long while, Dreamworks played second fiddle to Pixar in the animated feature stakes, with movies skewed towards the adult demographic through the use of celebrity voices and “street smart” humour, but lacking in heart. But then they delivered Kung Fu Panda – the story of a young, adopted panda named Po, who discovers the value of self worth through a combination of dumb luck and kung fu – and Dreamworks emerged from Pixar’s shadow in a flurry of fur, feathers and awesomeness.

Yet the elation was shortlived. That Dreamworks decided to make a sequel immediately brought the cynicism back, with expectations of a cheap cash-in (which they’d already done with Secrets of the Furious Five). But like Po’s teacher, I should’ve had more faith in the power of awesomeness. Kung Fu Panda 2 is at least as good, if not better, than its predecessor.

Firstly, mad props to the writers of the original for creating a world so rich with potential that gave rise to this new story. Did you notice in the first one that Po was the only panda? I didn’t. But Panda 2 starts to elaborate on that tale, working it into a much larger story that takes the story from that of a panda trying to save his town from the evil Tai Long, to trying to save the whole of China (and kung fu) against the threat of Lord Shen and his arsenal of weapons equipped with gunpowder.

What I loved most was the attention to detail in the character designs. Everything about them, from their form to the way that they moved, showed the care and craftsmanship that went into them, resulting in characterisations that in the real world, would be analogous to great acting. The humour was also razor sharp, recalling many of the gags from the first movie (e.g. the heart-to-heart between Po and his dad), and delivering completely new and unexpected punchlines that make the joke even funnier the second time around.

Sadly, the movie ends with the promise of a sequel, although maybe just this once, I might park my cynicism.

You’ve seen bits of this movie elsewhere. The Roswell/Area 51 alien conspiracy themes appear in more movies than I can name, and there’s a strong echo of The Goonies and Tomorrow, When The War Began where you’ve got a bunch of ordinary kids trying to grapple with everyday issues (love, identity, etc.) around extraordinary circumstances. But the “mystery monster” aspect in the promotion of this flick gives me the sense that Abrams is trying to make good on the poorly rated Cloverfield.

Happily, he delivers. Super 8 is very enjoyable, and the charm of the kids making their own zombie home movie spills over into the rest of the actual movie. The characters are very likeable and well cast, and the adults mostly stay out of the way to let the kids shine.

The script tackles a lot of themes so the story does get somewhat messy: a bunch of kids trying to make a zombie movie; father-son dealing with grief from losing their wife/mother; strange things happening all over town; two kids falling in love – but Abrams manages to hold them all together without, ahem, losing the plot.

It’s a fun “comfort movie” that Jenny and I will probably come back to over and over again (when we get it on Blu-ray).